This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Remove "dangerously" from paragraph involving COVID-19 on false statements subsection. The term is bombastic serves no purpose except to appeal to emotion, falls under WP:NEWSSTYLE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 04:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Kingofthedead ( talk) 23:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Kingof... Are you aware that you just teamed up with OP to circumvent the 24-hour BRD restriction on this page? OP deleted that word less than 24 hours before your repeat removal. The "danger" is from the cited sources. It is not contrary to NEWSSTYLE, which is a supplement to a guideline. As such it does not negate NPOV and V. I suggest you reinstate it to avoid the appearance of a DS violation. An editor was recently sanctioned in a similar situation. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@ SPECIFICO: Oh sorry about that. Wasn't aware of that rule. Kingofthedead ( talk) 06:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support Removal for reasons given above. PackMecEng ( talk) 01:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support I agree, that word should be removed because it falls under WP:NEWSSTYLE and removal does not change the meaning of the sentence in any way. Felix558 ( talk) 01:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

  We reflect RS reporting. Please review that guideline-supplement. It does not endorse POV misrepresentation of sources. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

  Our job is to reflect reporting, not their biased wording. We are still conveying what the source said just leaving out the bombastic word. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 03:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal. I fully agree with Iamreallygoodatcheckers. Wikipedia does not repeat "flowery" or "charged" language/descriptors without very good reason. In this instance, "dangerously" being removed doesn't change the meaning, and there's nowhere near a good NPOV reason to keep it in. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 03:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

  please note my warning about DS above. Please undo your proxy edit. SPECIFICO talk 03:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

  What proxy edit are you referring to specifically? I haven't edited this article directly since January 30th. If you would check the history, another editor made that edit. Please do the minor favor to myself and others of at least checking the history before making these sorts of accusations. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 03:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

  Not you sorry, I meant OP and @ Kingofthedead: As we know, longtime star contributor O3000 was recently sanctioned in a matter involving a similar situation. The removal by Kingof... upon OP's imperative above was evasion of DS 24-hour BRD. SPECIFICO talk 04:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal The RS content can be added without the non-encyclopedic editorializing. Mr Ernie ( talk) 12:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Delayed response to the Covid pandemic is inherently dangerous. It's not editorialising. Pipsally ( talk) 12:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • If it is inherently dangerous to respond slowly/delayed to a pandemic, it follows that it is redundant and unnecessary to include the word “dangerous” thus making it editorializing to do so. Nobody is arguing the word is incorrect, merely that it is unnecessary and not neutral to include, which you’ve just helped prove. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 14:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"Not necessary" is not the same as "not neutral", and emphasis is not the same as editorialising. His behaviour and the delay it engendered materially increased the danger, and it's perfectly neutral to acknowledge that per the existing version. Pipsally ( talk) 15:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I never said it was the same thing - I said that it is a non neutral word that isn't strictly necessary for understanding, and thus should not be included. Of course it's dangerous to delay responding to a pandemic - that's a big fat duh moment. Anyone reading it sees it awkwardly because dangerous adds literally nothing more to the sentence that isn't already there/implied - the word can be removed without causing any harm to user comprehension/accuracy/precision of the sentence, and thus it should be. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 16:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

That sounds self-contradictory. SPECIFICO talk 16:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Please explain how - short statements like this do nothing to help discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 16:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Come off it. If something needs implied understanding then it fundamentally is not written as clearly as it could be. You might be smart enough to get that implication, but that doesn't mean everyone is. Pipsally ( talk) 17:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you'd remain civil here, which comments like "come off it" aren't. There is no additional information added by the word "dangerously" in this sentence. If it is intended to convey additional information, it needs to be expanded as "dangerously" is not useful information (what was the danger, who was the danger to, etc). Bottom line, it does not serve the intended purpose of conveying information as it's redundant to the other parts of the sentence. It is editorializing to explicitly point out an inherent property of something - for example if I said "yellow school bus", you would wonder why I am pointing out that it is yellow. The choice of adding additional, redundant or unnecessary words is the very definition of editorializing - making an editorial decision that does not meaningfully change the information provided. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 18:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The danger is expaneded upon elsewhere in the article. A one-word summary gives context for readers less well-informed than you. Please stop saying it's "adding" anything, when it is abundantly sourced. SPECIFICO talk 18:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

That is not at all what I am saying when I use the word "adding". I am not at all suggesting that it cannot be sourced. Wikipedia is not obligated to copy exactly the wording of sources, and in fact, it is suggested that we do not copy the exact wording in reliable sources and "de-bias-ify" it before including the information in articles. Just because sources say "dangerously" does not mean we must include it - that can easily be inferred from the rest of the sentence, and as such the inclusion of that word just makes the sentence unnecessarily longer. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 18:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

That is not what WP editors do. Please review WP:NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure: The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view and Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. As I said, we summarize - we do not quote exactly - and even when sources say it was "dangerous" we do not have to include that, because that is endorsing that point of view. So yes, it is what Wikipedia editors do - we do not parrot the wording of sources, we write an encyclopedia article based on information included but without (as much as possible) the inherent bias/point of view that the news articles/other RS take. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 20:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

No. That's not our policy. Anyway, show us your sources that say it was not dangerous. SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of places in the world where school buses aren't yellow, and even where they are calling it yellow would only be including accurate and non editorial information. You also need to look at the the definition of editorialising, since those additional word would certainly change the meaning- that's the whole point. As for civility, come back when you stop throwing around phrases like "big fat duh moment". Goes both ways. Pipsally ( talk) 03:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per previous arguments Anon0098 ( talk) 19:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• The US had 400,000 virus deaths by about the time of the inauguration, a datum the article should note...Trump's (in)actions were dangerous. I don't understand complaints of editorializing or NEWSSTYLE. Bdushaw ( talk) 20:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support as non-neutral per Iamreallygoodatcheckers. Whether or not something is "dangerous" is a call for the reader to make. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you go around climbing into electricity substations. Pipsally ( talk) 04:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NEWSSTYLE. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 19:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per reasons stated above. -- Politicsfan4 ( talk) 23:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose removal for the reasons given in my comments above. SPECIFICO talk 23:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per several logical and coherent reasons above. Thanoscar21 ^talk _{contributions} 02:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• I have made this change per what appears to be consensus here; not closing in case additional people want to comment. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. It's unencyclopedic. Rreagan007 ( talk) 00:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - clarifies that the slow/low response was significant enough to be dangerous to U.S. residents, which is true. ɱ (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose it`s relevant..the virus is killing massive numbers of people..how can his response to it not be considered dangerous when Italy was able to knock it down in a month ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:3111:5746:3D8E:F6A5 ( talk) 23:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - The use of the term is supported by the reliable sources used to cite that section. Saying that something that is universally seen as dangerous is dangerous does not violate WP:NPOV in my view. Elsewhere in the article this text appears: "Trump suggested the dangerous idea of injecting a disinfectant to treat COVID-19". I doubt that there are too many editors who would support removing the word "dangerous" from that sentence, since it is not only proven without a doubt that putting disinfectant in your body is dangerous, but the danger of the procedure is crucial to the information presented. I don't really see any difference from its use in this case, where again we have consensus on the danger presented by the statements and the important of conveying that danger to the reader. PraiseVivec ( talk) 13:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I have seen people on this talk page repeatedly make allegations that this article is biased against Donald Trump. Many editors then proudly cite Wikipedia's policy of using verifiable sources - which have undoubtedly been anti-Trump (and for good reason, I might add!) - as well as a sub-article called "Talk:Donald_Trump/Response_to_claims_of_bias". But at the time of this writing, the last paragraph of the lead section states "The Senate voted 57–43 to convict, which was short of the required two-thirds majority and thereby acquitted Trump of the charge of inciting insurrection in the January 6, 2021 attack". Even as a European strongly anti-Trump person myself, it doesn't take a lot of brain to realize that writing "short of the required two-thirds majority" is a HUGE bias. Trump was acquitted - neutral and point-of-fact, even if I personally disagree strongly with the acquittal myself. Stating what would need to happen FOR conviction AFTER acquittal heads into blatantly point-of-view-territory and DOES give credence to anybody calling this article biased. In a court of law, a person is automatically assumed to be innocent, and evidence - as well as a jury - would cause a guilty verdict. This wording has the opposite effect; it seems as though Wikipedia has already deemed Trump guilty and is trying to describe how close to conviction the trial came. I have not checked who added that wording, but the most active editors here may point out that they didn't write that (or maybe they did, I haven't checked the log), Even so, you should all be made aware now that any future arguments on this talk page about bias against Trump on Wikipedia can use this exact type of circumstance to point out where many Wikipedia editors' loyalties on politics lie - not with point-of-fact or verifiable sources (which have very much described Trump's acquittal and the high chances of that happening even WAY before acquittal), but with whoever adds the information. If that's not supposed to be the case, then add even higher levels of protection for super-controversial subjects, to make only editors fluent in Wikipedia's policies add information and precisely to avoid this kind of biased incident. Thank you for hearing me out. 84.202.84.209 ( talk) 18:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

IMO the last sentence is too much detail for the lead which simply read "was acquitted" before the last change, and now another sentence added even more. It'll get changed again before long. The wording in the body is correct, 'though. 57 senators voted for conviction, 10 shy of the 67 senators required to convict Trump. A Senate trial isn't a court of law, so due process doesn't apply, and Senators are both judge and jury and set their own rules, including—in this case—with some of them colluding with the defense attorneys. This article explains it. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

How about changing the language to something like: "Trump was aquitted with a 57–43 vote by the Senate to convict. (A two-thirds majority is required to convict.) Kolya Butternut ( talk) 19:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This is definitely WP:RECENT, it doesn't matter how many people voted to convict what matters is that he was acquitted. A sentence in the lead saying he was acquitted and a more in depth explanation in the body is all that is warranted Anon0098 ( talk) 20:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

One strong indication that it is not WP:RECENT to list the vote count (I don't have specific wording in mind) is that the vote count in Johnson's impeachment is still quite famous. It appears, not that that's soooo relevant, in the first paragraph of Andrew Johnson. Gershonmk ( talk) 16:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a good point. Wikipedia isn't supposed to stray from the topic to describe some alternative topic. This is not the article on impeachment in the United States - this article should at most list the vote and that he was acquitted. If people really think this explanation is required, it should be in an {{ efn}} - not in the lead itself. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 19:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

{{ efn}} seems like a good compromise to me, because I do think the line is currently about the right length. Gershonmk ( talk) 16:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This is an important point that all talk page participants should read. There is no point in pretending that the writing of this article isn't biased against Donald Trump. It's very obvious when reading the article that it has been written with the motivation to criticise the subject, and not only to document events historically. This is not helped by persistent accusations of bias that come from people who are very clearly motivated by support of Donald Trump and cannot reconcile that there is extensive reliable content that reflects negatively on the subject. We need to focus purely on documenting events without implying that Trump's actions are bad, and should let them speak for themselves. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 20:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly 120%. This bias against Republicans is prevalent in other articles, too; my suggestion, for a start (although this wouldn’t fix the issue) would be to put “Critics believe” in front of statements like these. Hermit7 ( talk) 22:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

In the section titled "COVID-19 pandemic", under the subsection entitled "World Health Organization", the sentence is included - "In May and April, Trump accused the WHO of "severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus" and alleged without evidence that the organization was under Chinese control and had enabled the Chinese government's concealment of the origins of the pandemic."

I believe that this sentence should be changed to simply say - "In May and April, Trump accused the WHO of "severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus" and claimed that the organization was under Chinese control and had enabled the Chinese government's concealment of the origins of the pandemic."

Saying that Trump "alleged without evidence" the supposed Chinese control over the WHO is intellectually dishonest, as it is discounting what may be perceived as legitimate evidence, and contradicts this article's requirement for neutrality on the topic. As Trump's statement is a matter of complex opinion that can be logically argued both for and against, the wording in this article should be more neutral and not try to prove either side correct, but simply state the facts about what Trump said, without the unnecessary addition of accusing Trump of making the allegation without evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:6000:AD80:B81F:9A00:D4C1:7F96 ( talk) 20:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources (some of which are cited in the article right now) overwhelmingly agree that there was no evidence for it that was anywhere near solid. The argument as to whether those sources are correct or not what Wikipedia concerns itself with. We write about what reliable sources say - not what "the truth" is. If you have reliable sources that state that there is evidence that "the organization was under Chinese control..." please provide them here for discussion. The article is not going to be changed just because you personally disagree with the reliable sources. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 20:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Only the BBC citation actually says this. Let's see if there are others? Gershonmk ( talk) 20:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Found some sources, although they aren't all directly calling out the WHO, they show some of the influence the CCP has over it, despite contributing such little in money. ^{[1] [2] [3]} Prins van Oranje ( talk) 15:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

So, by your own statement, the sources you found don't say what Trump was saying? How are they useful, then? Heck, the first one is explicitly an opinion piece. -- Khajidha ( talk) 19:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The references aren’t reliable; otherwise there are plenty of other cases in which references should be reliable but aren’t. If I linked an article accusing Trump, that’s fine, but if I link an article defending Trump, that’s false balance. This is the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermit7 ( talk • contribs) 22:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(@ Berchanhimez: I moved your edits from my Talk page to this one. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC) )
You may have inadvertently reverted edits made to improve the grammar/flow of that part of the article in this edit. Please consider reverting to the content present immediately prior to your edit there, instead of readding content that was edited out, or alternatively, please post on the talk page why you think your version is better. If you do not discuss your reversion on the talk page of the article, I intend to, after waiting another 24 hours from now, readd the changes made by myself and Koala Butternut in these edits. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 23:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

To expand, the riot did not result in the deaths of five people. Three people died of medical emergencies, and the locations of those deaths mean they can hardly be connected to the riot at all. Hence why any "caused" or "resulted in" language is inappropriate. Furthermore, the evacuation of the Capitol building should be mentioned before the deaths per chronology - the building was evacuated before the deaths which are part of the "aftermath". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 23:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

There were actually five edits involved in deleting the mention of the five deaths from the lead. The first one changed the gerund clause to an adjective subordinate clause. The second one spun the deaths off into a separate sentence and called the riot an "event." The third one changed "event" back to "riot." The fourth one deleted "riot", and the fifth one deleted the sentence, calling it "trivial in nature, also is very short." My edit is based on the body of the article and on the sources. The NYT has a graphic description of the "medical emergency" that killed Boyland. She was crushed/trampled in the tunnel on the west side of the Capitol where rioters were trying to break through the police line. It’s the same "event" where Officer Boylan was crushed in the door. Greeson had a history of high blood pressure, and in the midst of the excitement, suffered a heart attack, according to his wife. He was was standing in a throng of fellow Trump loyalists on the west side of the Capitol, according to the NYT. The sources don’t mention where exactly Philips was located when he had the stroke, but DC police mentioned him as one of the four who died in and around the Capitol. It isn’t our place to speculate whether Philips and Greeson would also have had the medical emergencies resulting in their deaths at another place and time. Per the sources, they were on Capitol grounds during the storming of the Capitol, not an ideal time and place for professional medical assistance. So, yeah, "resulting in five deaths" seems justified and WP:DUE for the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem per se with the inclusion, but I do think that the evacuation needs to be in the same sentence as the event itself, and the deaths, if included, should be in a separate sentence. I also agree with the comment by Iamreallygoodatcheckers below, in that the deaths are likely undue for the lead of this biographical article, but not strongly enough to argue against inclusion at this time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 21:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards not including this. If it is going to be added it shouldn't be as stubby sentence that interrupts the flow. I'm not sure why mentioning the death count is significant for the lead itself, the lead is supposed to be very brief. Does 5 people dying have a lot to do with Trump himself? I would say not really, probably WP:UNDUE, at least for the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 21:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

There were five deaths involved in the events, but this is not useful information here. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 09:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The point of mentioning the five deaths is an implicit statement that the event was violent, irrespective of how people died. It wasn't just a "benign" riot, but it was so violent that several people died. The article does not yet mention that some 140 police officers were injured, some quite seriously. Bdushaw ( talk) 18:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it should be mentioned in the prose - but the article and lead are already too long and unwieldy at this time, and it should be removed from the lead as the more important pieces of information are the storming itself and the evacuation of people inside. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 18:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I would be ok with removing "5 deaths" if there was wording indicating how violent the incident was. "stormed" doesn't cut it, really. The incident is one of the most shocking in American history, per RS; set up and initiated by Trump - it deserves an accurate representation in the lead. I can't think of a better alternative to "5 deaths", but perhaps other can. Bdushaw ( talk) 23:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Bdushaw IMO saying Congress was evacuated, as it says now, implies this was violent. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 07:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal from lead. The figure is misleading out of context, smaller than (the nonexistent) WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, and isn't critical to this article topic, which is Trump, not the events of January 6. "Forcing Congress to evacuate" is enough detail. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose removal I think there's enough context and it's important enough. Gershonmk ( talk) 01:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose it`s relevant..so is the cop who committed suicide 2600:1702:2340:9470:F4D8:FA58:776:424C ( talk) 02:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not saying it's not "relevant", I'm saying that we have a very limited word count in the lead section and these deaths are only tenuously connected to Trump. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 07:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose removal — his words directly contributed to the violent deaths of people in the United States Capitol. Thanoscar21 ^talk _contribs 02:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

There were only 4 deaths "at storming of the Capitol". Sicknick died the following day( https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press-releases/loss-uscp-colleague-brian-d-sicknick) from a stroke and even texted his brother after the fact saying he was fine( https://www.propublica.org/article/officer-brian-sicknick-capitol). Xcerptshow ( talk) 08:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Per your sources: passed away due to injuries received ... was injured while physically engaging with protesters ( Capitol Police press release), died Thursday of injuries he sustained while trying to protect the Capitol from a mob of violent rioters ... the family got word that Brian Sicknick had a blood clot and had had a stroke ( Pro Publica). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Can it possibly be that the word "impeach" doesn't appear until 535 words into this article's intro? The poorly composed first paragraph informs the reader that Trump was both an "American media personality" and a "television personality" (!), but not that he bears the distinction of being the only U.S. president impeached twice (and all in just one term). That lame graf has many problems, but at the very least it should read "... from 2017 to 2021, during which he became the only U.S. president to be impeached twice." I don't plan to do it, or get active on this article, but this shortcoming is so glaring that it had to be brought to the attention of WPers active on the article. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley ( talk) 19:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not a shortcoming. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a trivia board/collection, and this is not a page to just elevate every negative thing about Trump. Being impeached twice is not somehow more important than literally every other detail of his life - this is a biography of him entirely, not that one part of his life. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 19:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Please review MOS:OPEN. This is not a news article or an op ed. Trump lived 70 years before becoming president, and that deserves mention chronologically. Anon0098 ( talk) 20:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I also find it absolutely fascinating that you think this article is downplaying impeachments considering it appears in some form 62 times in this page alone. Most people would say that it is overplaying impeachment Anon0098 ( talk) 20:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak is up front in his lead. It's kind of the same thing. SPECIFICO talk 22:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, then, I suppose such "trivialities" as Andrew Johnson’s impeachment, Richard Nixon’s resignation, Abe Lincoln’s assassination and FDR’s death in office should be expunged from the leads of their WP articles. Meantime, Trump’s “Apprentice” is so not trivial that we should repeat it – in a first paragraph that is far too substance-free – in case the reader missed it in the first sentence? Please. History will enshrine him, first and foremost, not as a reality TV character, but as a twice-impeached president. And an encyclopedia article on a historically important figure should open with a focus on his historical importance. Over and out. Charles J. Hanley ( talk) 22:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

But, to respond to the suggestion that it's trivia: We could say something like "...was twice impeached for violations of the presidential oath of office" SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

If you wish to expunge it from the lead of those articles, by all means go to their talk pages and argue your stance. But at this point all you're doing is arguing for WP:WHATABOUTX which holds no water. Anon0098 ( talk) 03:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I could see something being mentioned in the lead, just not sure what. SPECIFICO inserted it as part of the second sentence here with the wording , during which time he was twice impeached for violations of his oath of office Not a fan of the placement or wording. PackMecEng ( talk) 00:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually looking it over more, I think the current mention of the impeachments is fine for the lead. Perhaps condense and bring the two together but redundant mention is not great. PackMecEng ( talk) 00:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I am just as surprised as Cjhanley, but my shock is over the word billionaire not being mention until the 1262nd word in the article. How can it be that Trump's distinction as the first and only billionaire to ever become a US president is not delivered to the reader in the first paragraph of the lead? It is a glaring omission of an essential descriptor of the person named in this article. I leave it to all of you to fix this. I'm out. JHelzer 💬 23:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead text

I placed the 2 impeachments in the opening paragraph here. The edit was reverted. Please indicate support or opposition to the insertion below.

• Support per my comment above. It is his most unusual achievement. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Per my comment above. Already mentioned in the lead, adding it to the second sentence is ridiculous. PackMecEng ( talk) 00:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Trump's impeachment's should not be mentioned in the first sentence of this article or the first paragraph, which is only 3 sentences in length. The lead is supposed to be as bare as bare can get. MOS:OPEN states that we shouldn't get into "specifics" of the article. To add that he was impeached twice not only is redundant, but is giving massive undue weight to the impeachment. To put the impeachment in the lead would be to say impeachment was equivalent in weight to his entire business and television career along with his presidency. This is the most ridiculous proposal I could imagine on this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 02:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly agree with Iamreallygoodatcheckers. "Most unusual achievement" does not qualify for the opening paragraph. Anon0098 ( talk) 02:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as undue for the first paragraph/second sentence. And SPECIFICO should not ever insert text when it is being actively discussed on the talk page again. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 02:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support some mention, though this is too long. Everyone should be worrying about WP:RECENTISM but see the Andrew Johnson lede, which is definitely in line with his historical profile, for an example of how the longer view might play out. Gershonmk ( talk) 16:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson's first paragraph is significantly longer than Trump's first one. I suppose the consensus for this article is for the first paragraph to be super short. Maybe if one day the first paragraph is as long as Andrew Johnson's we could have this discussion, but that's not the case today. I'm not worried about WP:RECENTISM; I'm worried about WP:UNDUE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 20:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Excellent point. I qualify my response with this -- I think that you shouldn't have to read down as far as you do to get to the impeachments, but I agree that adding it now constituts UNDUE. Gershonmk ( talk) 23:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Right now it's in chronological order, I believe thats in accordance with guidelines. It would be odd to throw this in higher up in the lead paragraphs, messing up the chronological order. I feel there may be no way to get what you want. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 00:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The lead is not in chronological order, nor should it be. SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

No I mean, just look at the Johnson page, for example. Or Bill Clinton. Or Richard Nixon. The opening paragraph here is unusually short, and if expanded a bit an impeachment mention would be warranted and not constitute UNDUE. Gershonmk ( talk) 00:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Clearly, I agree. Nobody's given any reasoned argument to the contrary. Just "ridiculous", the Joe DiMaggio example to the contrary notwithstanding. SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

If you all want to throw his final impeachment above the 2016 election and his entire presidency and campaign, go ahead. It would confuse readers quite a bit. Hopefully, enough for them to close the tab and leave this terrible page. If you want to expand the opening paragraph that's fine, but it shouldn't be gradually expanded by first throwing in a sentence fragment about his impeachments. There should be a proposition made, that includes several sentences (similar to Johnson and others) and is more than equivocating his impeachments to his entire presidency and business career. The proposal here that you're supporting would only include a sentence fragment. SPECIFICO the introduction is loosely in chronological order, right now the second impeachment follows the 2020 election, which followed his first impeachment. In my opinion, that makes logical sense and is in chronological order. "Nobody's given any reasoned argument to the contrary" I have cited MOS:OPEN and WP:UNDUE. You haven't cited one guideline/policy except you personally believe this is his "most unusual achievement", I'm sorry, but your opinion shouldn't pave the way for a massive NPOV violation on one of the most notable people in the world. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 02:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Au contraire. He's elected in the first sentence. The impeachments are his most noteworthy life event and among the most notable events in recent US history. Please see the Joe DiMaggio article and countless others (Kirk Douglas, Jonas Salk, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Dick Cheney) that highlight the signal events of the subjects' lives up top. Please understand, I have no opinion about this. I am referring to the overwhelming weight of RS narratives, not something I cooked up on the fly. SPECIFICO talk 02:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know a whole lot about Joe DiMaggio, but his article has no relation on this one, neither do the other ones you mentioned. Maybe DiMaggio is mainly notable for his hitting streak. Trump is not mainly notable for being impeached twice. Right now the lead really just serves to define the subject, I'm open to expansion that might include impeachment. It seems like the events mentioned in the leads of Nixon, Cheney, Eisenhower, etc. were all legacy's that built over time. I'm not a fortune teller, I don't know if Trump's impeachments will be what comes to mind instantly when you hear his name in 50 years, like it is with Nixon. Right now that's not the case. Of course there's RS coverage of the impeachments, but no where near the RS of his entire business career, entire presidency, and media career. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 02:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Since you don't know about DiMaggio, and maybe don't know about the others I cited, it's pointless for you to cite them in a baseless and false refutation of the principle I demonstrated. SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I know Nixon's impeachment is really notable for him and Dick Cheney is generally notable for being not liked. Those are fine in their intro's because that is quite literally one of the main things their known for. That doesn't apply here because Trump's impeachments aren't like that, at least not yet. Your principle doesn't apply here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 02:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

What news and analysis sources do you read on a regular basis? Everything I see in mainstream RS discussion belies your dismissal. SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

RS has covered this, of course they have, but Trump is known for much more than impeachment. I think I've gotten my point across at this point and so have you. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 03:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

No, you've gotten nothing across, which is why I asked which sources you read. Still waiting. SPECIFICO talk 03:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

What about your sources? You're the one trying to say this is worthy enough of the 1st sentence, you should be the one listing a crap ton of sources. What do you even want me to say? Like The Washington Post, CNN, what? I've gotten across that this is clearly not giving proper weight. This really is just commonsense. That's like if I proposed Trump is a unicorn and expected you to find a source that said the contrary. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 03:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you guys should reset, this has gotten out of hand into WP:NPA. SPECIFICO thinks there should be a mention of the impeachments in the lede, and both Iamreallygoodatcheckers and I think that's a fine idea so long as the opening paragraph is more like the one on Richard Nixon, so that it doesn't constitute WP:UNDUE -- the way to compromise is clear, I think. What I suggest is SPECIFICO comes up with some language for an opening paragraph that would satisfy all of us. Gershonmk ( talk) 03:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Gershonmk, I appreciate you trying to reach a consensus, on this discussion as well as the one about McConnell. If you want to draft a proposal thats good, but if you look above you will notice (excluding you, SPECIFICO, and myself) a lot of editors appear to be opposed to adding in his impeachment in the lead at all. I also don't know how this would work out with the long lasting RfC on the lead being discussed above. If you or anyone else draft a proposal other editors and myself, I'm sure, will be holding the proposal to the highest scrutiny. I've said this before, it's an act of congress to change the lead, but go ahead and make a proposal if you wish. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 20:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said, I agree, definitely not worth for me to try but I'm open to supporting one. Anyway this got out of hand. Gershonmk ( talk) 20:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose putting it in the lead paragraph. It should be in the lead section - as it is, in chronological order with all the other notable stuff about him - but not the lead paragraph. Maybe someday history will judge that the two impeachments were the most notable things about his long and eventful life, but at this point we are in no position to sort out what he will be most remembered for. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The far-right is a small minority of Trump supporters and it is WP:UNDUE to give an entire subsection about them. Also the racial views section does justice to the reason this subsection exist, kind of redundant in an already long article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 21:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the section should be removed, since 75 million people obviously aren't Nazis, but I do think that this should be amply covered in the article, given his penchant for defending those same far-right supporters ("very fine people", "stand back and stand by"), as well as many WP:RS covering the subject. Thanoscar21 ^talk _contribs 23:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a section, tbc, that discusses supporters of his 2016 campaign. Do you object to any claims? Because I don't think it can be fairly read to imply his 63 million votes were far-right. Gershonmk ( talk) 03:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This needs to be covered in the article, although the specific wording and detail can be discussed here. No US president has been as explicit as Trump in legitimizing and empowering far-right and right-wing politics and extremist violence. SPECIFICO talk 00:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with SPECIFICO. The specific wording and examples chosen can be changed, but no major campaign for president has ever so blatantly hooked on to white supremacist supporters before, and that's a big deal. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 02:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with the content? IMO it reflects the sources, there's been a lot of press coverage of his far-right supporters and his defending them was important to the campaigns. Gershonmk ( talk) 03:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree 2600:1702:2340:9470:F4D8:FA58:776:424C ( talk) 02:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is being cited for removal, but WP:UNDUE is based on views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, and not based on whether the far-right are just a small minority of Trump supporters. starship .paint ( exalt) 13:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the paragraph: Some view the nature and frequency of Trump's falsehoods as having profound and corrosive consequences on democracy.[801] James Pfiffner, professor of policy and government at George Mason University, wrote in 2019 that Trump lies differently from previous presidents, because he offers "egregious false statements that are demonstrably contrary to well-known facts"; these lies are the "most important" of all Trump lies. By calling facts into question, people will be unable to properly evaluate their government, with beliefs or policy irrationally settled by "political power"; this erodes liberal democracy, wrote Pfiffner.[802] Firstly, this paragraph is pure POV and biased. Also the bulk of it focuses on one professors opinion, which is giving WP:UNDUE to this one mans opinion. His opinion is not notable enough to warrant an entire paragraph on Donald Trump's Wikipedia article. We also need to find way's to shorten this long article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 21:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's pure POV and biased, since it's directly quoting him (the professor), but it is perhaps undue weight. I'm thinking it can be condensed into this:

Some view the nature and frequency of Trump's falsehoods as having negative effects on democracy.^[801] James Pfiffner, professor of policy and government at George Mason University, wrote that Trump lies differently from previous presidents, because he offers "egregious false statements that are demonstrably contrary to well-known facts"; by calling facts into question, people will be unable to properly evaluate their government, thus eroding liberal democracy.^[802]

I've gone ahead and WP:BOLDly changed it; if anyone thinks that it's bad, feel free to raise any concerns. Thanoscar21 ^talk _contribs 23:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I restored the full text. I think it's clearer and accurately conveys Pfiffner's statement. This is not UNDUE. It's typical of hundreds of such expert assessments. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd support removal. It is entirely based on one person and the language is way too strong to have that weak of a citation Anon0098 ( talk) 03:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The section should stay. Those that remember the extensive discussion about it, will remember there was a consensus for it and that the statement had widespread RS to support it. RE "removal/weak of a citation" - Per an earlier comment, some people here have been vigorously removing citations...giving credence to my suspicion that first there is removal of citations, then there is removal of text as unsupported. Pretty bad form, intentional or otherwise. Bdushaw ( talk) 18:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(Besides, now we have this insane storming of the Capitol as dramatic proof of the statement.) Bdushaw ( talk) 18:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Do we want many references regarding Trump eroding democracy? Or will people claim OVERCITE? starship .paint ( exalt) 14:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The section should be removed because Pfiffner is not knowledgeable on the subject matter. If he even had a basic grasp of presidential lies then he would know that they all lie in a big way. His statement isnt based in fact, but rather opinion. Also, "egregious false statements" that are "contrary to well-known facts" is just a colorful way to simply say "lie". Xcerptshow ( talk) 08:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You should read the whole article by Pfiffner. The first three words of the body are: All presidents lie. He goes on to point out that other presidents have told lies from legitimate lies concerning national security, to trivial misstatements, to shading the truth, to avoiding embarrassment, to serious lies of policy deception. starship .paint ( exalt) 14:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia’s NOR principle, No Original Research, this article is deeply biased. If you say that it isn’t, you’re saying that other articles are biased the other way. This is the problem with Wikipedia; if a Republican viewpoint is biased, a Democratic viewpoint should be biased. But according to the article, Republican viewpoints are biased while Democratic viewpoints are fine. For example: Donald Trump is racist. If you take that and look at the fact that many people disagree with this, a much more neutral point of view is “Critics believe” Donald Trump is racist, or “Some people believe” Donald Trump is racist, or “It is debated whether” Donald Trump is racist.

But no. Donald Trump is racist. No argument, no debate. Do you see my point here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermit7 ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. We just repeat what the WP:RS say. I know this is repeated in the section above, but it's true. We just reflect what the sources say. We'd happily include more conservative sources, but the problem is that there are only about two reliable conservative-leaning sources; WSJ and The Hill. Thanoscar21 ^talk _contribs 23:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and the racist part? "Very fine people", and tweeting a video with "white power" seems to be a little racist. Thanoscar21 ^talk _contribs 23:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No 2600:1702:2340:9470:F4D8:FA58:776:424C ( talk) 02:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No Prins van Oranje 15:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we go with what RS say, No we can't use how we interperate his actions to claim he is racist. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@ SNUGGUMS: I beg to differ with your edit summary. no good reason to remove: For one thing, brothers Fred Jr. and Robert are dead, so that sentence would need some reworking. feels redundant: If it's redundant to mention the older sister and the niece in the infobox because of the Family of Donald Trump page, why are the names of the siblings important enough to list in the Early life section? They are all mentioned on the Family page, too. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

When the article text says Donald is the fourth of Fred and Mary's five children, it looks incomplete without mentioning who the others were, though feel free to rephrase in accordance with how his brothers died. As for the infobox, if a general family link is included, then just using that helps avoid bloating the field on relatives. No objections to talking about his niece within article prose. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 17:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@ SPECIFICO: I largely reverted this edit of yours to the judiciary section. We've had most of this material in here for quite some time, and I feel it's important to explain, briefly, the key battles involving the Gorsuch/Kavanaugh/Barrett nominations. All three were atypically high-profile and intensely significant, even for Supreme Court nominations: Gorsuch because of Garland and the nuclear option, Kavanaugh for the Blasey Ford allegation, and Barrett because the nomination was on the eve of the election. I feel that's worth the short space allotted to it. This is one of the Trump legacies that will reverberate for a long time. Neutrality ^talk 00:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it should be retained, and the details are appropriate. But I think needs to include the date of RBG's death and a more direct comparison of that last-minute approval with the Senate's earlier refusal to consider Garland. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I think SPECIFICO is right here. The additional information is unnecessary, and I think cuts to stuff like this will help make the article more readable. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 02:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

123, please self-revert your undo of Neutrality's revert. He raised his objection on talk and we should now discuss, not edit-war. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, SPECIFICO, I appreciate that. Onetwothreeip: In your edit summary, you said you were removing "historical assessments." That is not true: the historical assessment material had been removed from the article hours earlier. Your edit also not only re-made a challenged edit, it also reverted changes to things like verb tense (making them incorrect), and introduced redundancy (thanks to your edit, the Federalist Society is now mentioned twice in the same paragraph). The practices of (1) making misleading edit summaries, (2) making "blind" reverts, and (3) re-making edits challenged by multiple editors is discourteous, and it's not consistent with encyclopedia policy. Please self-revert and please don't do things like this again. Neutrality ^talk 18:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Neutrality, I don't have a problem with changing verb tense and removing multiple mentions and it's unfortunate if constructive changes were reverted as well. I did not say I was removing historical assessments. My full edit summary is Restored revision 1007777128 by Jontel (talk): The reduction in size of the Judiciary section was constructive and beneficial, and these historical assessments are too contentious and early. The version I restored was before the historical assessments were added. If you wish to raise concerns about my edit summaries, please provide evidence for your claims on my user talk page.

To the content, we do not need these extended commentaries on the events. These may be due in articles about the judicial appointments, but it's too much information on this biography. A sentence or two on the main issues of each Supreme Court nomination may be relevant here, but we don't need to be elaborating on politicians did wrong. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 21:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

There are two significant factors and one corollary. Factors: 1) Trump went with the Federalist Society from start to finish without having any concept what their list was or why they were promoting it. 2) Trump thought he was buying votes on the court to rule in his favor on his unprecedented "constitutional" challenges to due process and normal American governance. Corallary 1a- his appointees continued a downward spiral in republican nominees, where once folks like Earl Warren, Rehnquist, and sometimes Roberts, showed an understanding of the role of the Court and real world interests and equities that brought cases before them. These summary points should be stressed. There's plenty of sourcing for these points, but I don't have it handy at the moment. The spectacles of Kavanaugh and Barrett are themselves not about Trump. SPECIFICO talk 22:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x and MelanieN have quite rightly restored the material to as it was before your edits. It's very regrettable that you didn't do so yourself. On the actual issue, I'm baffled by your comment. "A sentence or two on the main issues of each Supreme Court nomination" is exactly what you removed from the article: One sentence on the Gorsuch nomination, one sentence on Kavanaugh, and two sentences on Barrett. If you are no longer pushing for that removal, then we can close this talk section. Neutrality ^talk 23:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather a sentence or two on the nominations altogether, briefly stating when they were and maybe the Senate votes. I don't mean to imply that we should discuss them in much detail. However, I also don't support more than minor mentions of how Donald Trump has appointed conservative judges. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 03:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The beaming Coney Barrett at her infectious Covid-spreader reveal is alone worth 2 sentences. SPECIFICO talk 06:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the material to the article while we discuss it here (the same material that Neutrality restored). The removal has been challenged, and long term content should not be removed without consensus. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Under "Storming of the US Capitol" section. The sentence "Thousands of those supporters then stormed the Capitol around 1 pm" is inaccurate. According to USA Today ^[1] and multiple other sources including Wikipedia ^[2] , the storming of the Capitol was initiated before and at a minimum started while the speech was going on.

They also picked out quotes characterizing the speech as violent and selectively left out the "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." portion which is deceptive. ^[3] "Five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died in the riot." It also claims the cop died "in the riot." even in the citation it says that he died at a hospital.(cited on page) What it fails to mention is he died at 2130 the following night. ^[4] The citation is from a NYT article. The NYT has made retractions due to inaccurately reporting on Sicknick. Xcerptshow ( talk) 08:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The USA Today source says that they gathered at 6 AM, but that was just going to be a protest. If go down, the protest only became violent when Trump said, "We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,” Trump said. “So we are going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue – I love Pennsylvania Avenue – and we are going to the Capitol." Saying "peacefully and patriotically" at first is fine, but then he said to, "fight like hell". That would be like me saying, "peacefully make your voice heard on Wikipedia", and then saying, "Vandalize Wikipedia, and if you don't you're not going to have an encyclopedia anymore". About Sicknick, he died from injuries sustained from the riot. I can't find any mention of him in the article (command + F), so if you're talking about a different article, you need to take your concerns there. Thanks, Thanoscar21 ^talk _contribs 16:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanoscar21, I am not sure that this comparison is synonymous. I think the issue is the word "fight" since it's connotations can change so greatly based on context. On Wikipedia, vandalism is inherently negative; in the realm of politics, to fight could be positive (i.e. fight for rights) or negative (i.e. fighting in war, perhaps). Moreover, I'm not sure if the use of "fight like hell" was used directly in relation to the supporters but rather senators and congress members. (I am not disputing that it was indirectly but I feel we cannot make such subjective assumptions without breaching NPOV.) Wheras, the "marching [...] to peacefully and patriotically" bit is explicitly in reference to the supporters and the subsequent riot. A potential solution for this is to remove the specific quotes and provide a more general description since there is a separate article which can provide a more complete sense of the speech. It seems inevitable that attempting to sum up the whole thing in a few sentences is bound to be a source of conflict.

I hope my thoughts are clear enough to be cohesive and I look forward to hearing back from you; thank you, ritenerek ^talk :) 21:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritenerek, he says, "fight like hell," and then a few sentences later, "we're going to the Capitol." But now, this is just getting into original research. What the original user said "thousands of supporters then stormed" was incorrect. According to USA Today, the rioters only turned violent after Trump said, "fight like hell". Maybe he didn't mean it like that, but that's certainly what the rioters thought. Thanks, Thanoscar21 ^talk _contribs 13:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanoscar21, ah I understand, still getting acquainted with the concept of neutrality. Cheers, ritenerek ^talk :) 13:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at [1]] regarding whether the events of January 2021 should be considered a coup in the United States. Your comments are appreciated. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 06:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

he is not the president anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.33.27 ( talk) 13:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Do we say he is? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

May someone please edit Donald_Trump#Post-presidency to include the following sentence: Trump accepted an invitation to speak at CPAC for 2021. BigCheese76 ( talk) 13:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure it's all that relevant, it's one speech at one event. I would rather we wait a bit and can thus determine what is and is not significant historically. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. See above comment by Slatersteven βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 15:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Interstellarity replaced "refused to concede defeat" with "refused to concede defeat until January 7". No source was cited in the body supporting this change. It's my impression that, although Biden's inaguration did proceed, and Trump did depart for Mar-a-Lago, he never formally conceded. I reverted the edit. Interstellarity, do you have a source indicating that he did concede on January 7? ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 23:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It probably refers to this. I don't think he conceded "defeat". He conceded that A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@ ONUnicorn: Muboshgu pointed out a source that supported my edit that got reverted. Trump made that speech the day after the Capitol storming. I usually provide sources for my edits. However, there are almost no sources in the lead and that’s why I didn’t provide a source. Interstellarity ( talk) 00:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, he didn't concede defeat. As for the source, there shouldn't be sources in the lead because the lead should summarize the body, which is where the sources should go. Your edit changed the lead, but not the body, and didn't cite sources anywhere.~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 18:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Interstellarity, Trump didn't concede defeat though. To concede, he would have to acknowledge that he lost fair and square. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Muboshgu: I understand now. Thanks for clarifying. Interstellarity ( talk) 12:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Just one more quick point, in his statement yesterday about the SCOTUS decision on his taxes, he says These are attacks by Democrats willing to do anything to stop the almost 75 million people (the most votes, by far, ever gotten by a sitting president) who voted for me in the election—an election which many people, and experts, feel that I won. I agree! He left DC, but he hasn't conceded. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it is clear he had not conceded defeat, even now. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

So, can we use this to bar him from running in 2024? If, as he believes, he won the 2020 election, then he wouldn't be eligible to run in 2024. Tell him he can't run again until he admits that he lost in 2020. -- Khajidha ( talk) 16:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

No as this is Wikipedia, and what we say has no legal standing outside of Wikipedia. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You do understand that I was just making a joke? -- Khajidha ( talk) 17:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

We are not a comedy club. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Tell that to EEng. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 18:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

" Pedants have a reputation for humorlessness, but for Wikipedians a sense of humor is at the core of the good-faith collaboration that defines the project." Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

MAybe, but I can hardly say to user X "see wp:forum" and then ignore user Y can I? Slatersteven ( talk) 12:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This would be more consistent with nearly every other article on someone born in the USA and with other presidents. However, the U.S. should not be linked to the United States, per guidelines. This would change consensus 2. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 04:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I was actually about to do this anyway. It should be New York City, United States. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 20:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

No they’re not. The content should be restored.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1006872704&oldid=1006867643

soibangla ( talk) 19:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

IMO The content does constitute undue weight but only because the section on the trial is significantly too short. I suggest expanding it, maybe to roughly the same length as the first impeachment section, though the second seems to have been more important. Also, it needs a hatnote link to the trial article at least. Gershonmk ( talk) 19:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

So you’re saying the section is too short and should be expanded, but just not with this content? soibangla ( talk) 19:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I would include this content in an expanded section. It's one of the most important things to say about the trial. But because there's nothing currently in the section except vote counts, it constitutes undue weight. Gershonmk ( talk) 20:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

They are undue weight. This is a biography of Donald Trump - not an article about events. Any content that is directly about a specific event should be moved to the (sub)article about said event and at most a 1 paragraph summary of the event (in its entirety) should be added here - not quotes. Agree with the removal. This article is too long as it is - it's not the time to discuss adding things, it's the time to, after months, start paring it down. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 20:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree this article contains a lot of stuff that should be pulled, but the fact that the man was acquitted by his party but the party leader immediately stated in no uncertain terms that he was guilty, using the term “terrorism” (which I’d be happy to add), is certainly not something this BLP should ignore. It is the capstone of his presidency. soibangla ( talk) 20:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Your opinions on the "capstone"-ness of this are irrelevant. It is not due for that section which is in fact a perfect example of summary style for sections that have a main article. At most, a source regarding McConnell's comment could be used as part of citing a single sentence regarding the reactions of Republicans against Trump as a whole - but a quote from one person is not due for this article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 20:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with the SS point -- this is actually one-paragraph summary of TWO articles, one about the Impeachment and one about the Trial. A one-paragraph summary of each in accordance with it -- see my suggestion below -- should include something of this order. Gershonmk ( talk) 03:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is undue weight, particularly for the lead. You would have to prove that this one quote by Mitch McConnell has received the same amount of media coverage (weight) as every other thing in the lead. You would have to say that one remark by McConnell is the same in importance as Trump winning the 2016 election, losing the 2020 election, appointing 3 Supreme Court justices, and his negotiations with North Korea. All those things have one sentence in the lead. The lead is supposed to be a very brief description of the subject, not for quotes by the Senate minority leader. The lead is already to long anyway. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 20:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't in the lede? I think you're confused. OP is talking about a line they added to the end of the Second Impeachment section. Gershonmk ( talk) 20:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Your right that's my mistake. I would still say that the quote is undue even there, that single quote hasn't garnered much media coverage. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 21:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, if that was really your reasoning then I think you owe OP an apology (I have other objections, vide supra.) Just google relevant terms -- it received blanket coverage. Gershonmk ( talk) 21:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm against adding that quote. I don't see a problem with adding that McConnell and other Republican's reasoning for the acquittal, but just having a quote that is only a small part of McConnell's speech is not even right. Probably violates NPOV. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 21:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

So you're fine with including him saying an ex-president can't be impeached but you have a problem with this part?

January 6th was a disgrace. American citizens attacked their own government. They used terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of democratic business they did not like. Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the Senate floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President. They did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth—because he was angry he’d lost an election. Former President Trump’s actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty. The House accused the former President of, quote, ‘incitement.’ That is a specific term from the criminal law. Let me put that to the side for one moment and reiterate something I said weeks ago: There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day.

Well OK then. soibangla ( talk) 00:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Obviously adding a quote of that length would be massively undue weight. I'm fine mentioning in a sentence that McConnell thought the attack was Trump's fault, but it shouldn't be presented as the only thing he said, that would be a NPOV violation. I think there should be as sentence like: "Despite McConnell giving Trump responsibility for the attack, he acquitted for blah blah." Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 02:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, this needs to be included and is not undue weight. The WP:IDONTLIKEIT removal should be reverted. -- Tataral ( talk) 01:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Tataral Iamreallygoodatcheckers soibangla I think we're all approaching the same page here, so I'll suggest a compromise edit which I don't think is WP:UNDUE:

===Second Impeachment===

On January 11, 2021, an article of impeachment charging Trump with incitement of insurrection against the U.S. government was introduced to the House.[744] The House voted 232-197 to impeach Trump on January 13, making him the first U.S. officeholder to be impeached twice.[745][746] The impeachment, which was the most rapid in history, ^[1] followed an unsuccessful bipartisan effort to force Trump out of office via the 25th Ammendment. ^[2] Ten Republicans voted for impeachment – the most members of a party ever to vote to impeach a president of their own party.[747]

===Second Impeachment Trial===

Senate Democrats asked to begin the trial immediately, while Trump was still in office, but then- Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked the plan. ^[1] On February 13, following a five-day Senate trial, Trump was acquitted when the Senate voted 57–43 for conviction, falling ten votes short of the two-thirds majority required to convict; seven Republicans joined every Democrat in voting to convict, the most bipartisan support in any Senate impeachment trial of a president.[748][749] Most Republicans voted to acquit Trump, though some thought he was guilty but that the Senate did not have jurisdiction over former Presidents (Trump had left office on January 20). Included in the latter group was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said, "There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day," but, "former President Trump is constitutionally not eligible for conviction." ^[2]

Gershonmk ( talk) 03:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Gershonmk: that would be undue, yes, per summary style. The events of his second impeachment are already covered in great detail in their own series of articles. They merit at most one long, or two short paragraphs - in one section - which provide an overview, without quotes/extra fluff - save that for the primary article. This is also not the place to rehash reasoning, etc. Summary style would be the precursor, event itself, and the outcome of the event - i.e. what he was impeached for, the votes, and the outcome of acquittal. Discussion of others' reactions is not appropriate for this biographical article - it is appropriate for "domestic reactions to <event>" - be that its own article or a section in the main one. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 03:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't really agree so let's see what other editors think. Look at the way the first impeachment is done -- two sections, each much longer than the total of these, and that was less impactful. I do think the actual quote is the least essential part, but I'm trying to reach consensus here. Gershonmk ( talk) 03:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The other impeachment section being undue and in violation of summary style does not mean we should add more violations. In fact, this "well this other part of the article... so we must add Y!" attitude that has been displayed by many editors here for months is why this article is exceedingly long and unwieldy. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 03:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree -- that's why my proposal for this one is shorter. But no one gets to decide these things on their own, and I think this proposal has a shot at resolving the issue for everyone. Gershonmk ( talk) 03:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, there's a couple things here. The part about the house impeaching him if fine, all good there. The trial part up until the sentence "Most Republicans voted..." is also good, well written and great. Now the part that says "some thought he was guilty" needs to be changed to "some thought he held responsibility" because McConnell never said Trump was guilty, he said if Trump was still president he would deeply reflect on what the house managers said, thats not implying that McConnell beyond a doubt thought he was guilty. I think the last sentence just needs to be removed, it's redundant to the prior sentence and gives undue weight to McConnells speech. This article is already to long to be adding in redundant sentences. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 20:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

How about "Most Republicans voted to acquit Trump, though some held him responsible but felt the Senate . . ." I think ultimately I agree with OP that McConnell's speech is one of the most important things to come out of the trial. McConnell supporting the impeachment, letting Rs vote their conscience, etc. shaped the trial and the reason is what he said in the speech. Gershonmk ( talk) 21:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"Most Republicans voted to acquit Trump, though some held him responsible but felt the Senate . . ." sounds good to me. I'm not gonna lose any sleep if we add McConnells comments, but I just feel they're redundant. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 21:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Undue. McConnell refused to schedule an emergency session (citing due process which doesn't apply to Senate trials) that would have allowed the impeachment trial to take place before January 20 and then, after Trump's term had expired, argued that a former president was "constitutionally not eligible for conviction" while simultaneously arguing that he was guilty as charged and then some. Sounds like a case of eating your cake and having it to. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I trimmed the direct quotes for now—way too long. IMO the whole sentence is undue. Numerous constitutional scholars— like these two—disagree. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, I changed the first sentence back because the date is in the previous section, the comma placement was wrong, and as noted here it's important that he was still in office. You can try to get consensus to add more info about the constitutionality but IMO it's enough to show 57 disagreed. Gershonmk ( talk) 16:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Tried a compromised edit, hopefully to your satisfaction. :) Gershonmk ( talk) 16:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me that Included in the latter group now refers to the Senators who voted that the trial was constitutional, and McConnell wasn't one of them. The date the Democrats asked McConnell to schedule the emergency session is important because that would have given the Senate enough time to hold the trial before Trump's term ended. Trump's end of term doesn't need to be mentioned, it's in the infobox, and the vote on the constitutionality also seems redundant to me—if it had gone the other way, there wouldn't have been a trial. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, But it's the same day -- January 13 -- that is mentioned in the previous sentence: "The House voted 232–197 to impeach Trump on January 13," so readers know immediately=the 13th. I think it's responsible to mention that he'd left office because he left office in the course of this paragraph, I think most people know when a president leaves office but probably everyone, and it could be especially confusing if it ever changes. What do you think of:

Senate Democrats asked to begin the trial immediately, while Trump was still in office, but then-Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell blocked the plan. On February 11, the Senate voted 56-44 that the trial was constitutional. On February 13, following a five-day Senate trial, Trump was acquitted when the Senate voted 57–43 for conviction, falling ten votes short of the two-thirds majority required to convict; seven Republicans joined every Democrat in voting to convict, the most bipartisan support in any Senate impeachment trial of a president or former president. Most Republicans voted to acquit Trump, though some held him responsible but felt the Senate did not have jurisdiction over former presidents (Trump had left office on January 20). Included in the latter group was McConnell, who said Trump was "practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day" but "constitutionally not eligible for conviction." Gershonmk ( talk) 22:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

onetwothreeip Please engage here before removing consensus text. And why would you remove the hatnote? Gershonmk ( talk) 21:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

What I reverted wasn't consensus text. You've been blocked from editing before for restoring the content. The hatnote is a separate issue: I removed one of them when I removed the section break. This subsection only needs one heading and doesn't need to be split into further subsections. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 21:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

123, you reverted the same text twice without discussing it on talk. That is a DS violation. Please restore the text. SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@ SPECIFICO: Can you please show me where I have made two reverts of the same content within 24 hours? If I have inadvertently done so, I will certainly self-revert. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It turns out the issue is not about making two reverts in the same day, but that I hadn't commented here in the eight days between the two reverts. That's my mistake, I thought I had commented here in that time. I wanted to bring the content to the status quo but if that's not happening I am fine to proceed. My position is that we do not need much commentary over this event, and we should rely on details that outline the facts of the impeachment, such as the votes. McConnell's comments can be placed on another article, and shouldn't be used to counterweight the fact that Trump wasn't removed by the Senate. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 23:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If you'll review this discussion, you will see that your view was rejected. SPECIFICO talk 00:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Donald Trump entry is insufficient as it is missing a section on “Distinctions.” Trump had many political accolades and distinctions (Nobel Peace Prize nominations, as an example). This same “Distinctions” section is found in President Joe Biden’s entry, and as a matter of principle needs to be present in Donald Trump’s entry. 2600:1700:E1E0:FC10:DA4:C4CB:58A4:61F6 ( talk) 14:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

He means change no-distinctions-column to distinctions-column. I agree; this should be fair and Trump should get a distinctions column if Biden gets one. I have noticed severe Democratic bias everywhere on Wikipedia, and if you’re open to changing that, Jonesey, you’ll at least actually hear what he has to say. Hermit7 ( talk) 20:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The paragraph where it talks about Trump's foreign policy and response to Covid-19 should be split into two. It should also mention the how Trump helped establish diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab states. Prins van Oranje ( talk) 15:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree there is a natural paragraph break between domestic and foreign policy in the lead there. I added it recently, but it was quickly reverted. No reason other than a consensus for such a "major" (?) change should be obtained first. Perhaps we can have a discussion of that paragraph break. I think adding the break is not only better English, it makes reading the lead easier, while adding nothing to its length. As for Trump/Israel/Arabs, I know nothing and have no opinion. Bdushaw ( talk) 07:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ping for more talk on this suggestion. Bdushaw ( talk) 18:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems further discussion is necessary about the separation of the domestic/foreign paragraphs into two paragraphs. They are naturally two separate discussions with a natural break "In foreign policy..." Joining them does not reduce the number of paragraphs, it just makes for two paragraphs badly written. Let's make it easier on the readers and avoid large blocks of text. Bdushaw ( talk) 08:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I Oppose separating the two paragraphs. It has been like this for as long as I can remember. Seek consensus for this change. JLo-Watson ( talk) 16:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

No it has not been this way, but the section has recently undergone several major changes. It is now natural to separate these two paragraphs. I did seek consensus for the change right here, as you can see, with no responses; hence few seem to find the change offensive. I believe you are in violation of the 2RR rule, however. Bdushaw ( talk) 17:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Given the incredible size of the article, I trimmed the North Korea subsection (a subsection of foreign policy) of some extraneous detail, which are also found in other articles, in this edit. It was reverted and should be restored. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 06:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I support the trimming. I also don't think the last sentence of this sentence is necessary, as it doesn't tell us anything, and has no direct relationship with Trump.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 06:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump met Kim, wanting denuclearisation. It didn’t happen. That’s the relevance of the last sentence. starship .paint ( exalt) 08:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm undecided on the last sentence, which is why I left it in the article. It should probably say something linked to Trump though, rather than leaving it as an implication. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 08:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Japan Times Trump’s diplomatic endeavors did not result in an elimination of the North Korean nuclear arsenal — contrary to his initial assertions, Pyongyang has continued to develop its weapons program Source makes the connection. starship .paint ( exalt) 09:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The source might make the connection, but we don't. Saying that the talks broke down is sufficient. Clearly if North Korea did scrap its nukes, we would say that.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 21:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually I think the trimming is fine (assuming that WP:V has been followed because I haven’t checked). starship .paint ( exalt) 08:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The cuts removed longstanding consensus text that conveys the substance of the two leaders' engagement, including Trump's pleasure at Kim's love letters. The cut was not NPOV. Also, these cuts are not "trims" when they change the meaning of the narratives. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

However long the text has been in the article is not an argument for its retention. I also checked to see if there was a consensus on this, and found there was none. "Love letters" does not convey substance and the proposed text very adequately summarises the warm relationship between Trump and Kim. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 21:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Please review our Policies and Guidelines regarding consensus and longstanding content. Yes, it is consensus text and you'll need to convince us all that WEIGHT, sourcing, or other factors have changed. Trump used the "love letter" bit, which was discussed here on talk, I believe. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read the guidelines you are talking about. Just because something may have been discussed, does not mean there is consensus for it. And no, nobody needs to "convince us all" about anything, ever. There plainly isn't any consensus text about North Korea for this article. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 03:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the trimming improves the article. Trump uses hyperbolic language, which if quoted verbatim can seem confusing. The wording implies that there was a sexual or romantic aspect to the relationship, which per WP:REDFLAG would require authoritative sources. TFD ( talk) 21:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't convey a sexual relationship. It conveys the context and understanding Trump brought to this dire threat, identified by his predecessor as the top foreign policy challenge facing Trump. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Trump's own self-description of their correspondence implies a "sexual or romantic aspect." It does, however, importantly show that Trump sought to use "personal diplomacy" with Kim in one of his signature policy initiatives, which as it turned out was fruitless. Neutrality ^talk 00:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"Love" can imply a romantic interest, which is an issue particularly for readers who are not familiar with the article subject. Per WP:ASTONISH, The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read. Do not use provocative language. Instead, offer information gently. Use consistent vocabulary in parts that are technical and difficult. To work out which parts of the sentence are going to be difficult for the reader, try to put yourself in the position of a reader hitherto uninformed on the subject. Trump's own words cannot be taken as accurately assessing anything. If we want to say he sought to use personal diplomacy, let's just say that instead of implying it. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 03:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with those comments about the letters. I also think that the previous text put too much emphasis on the letters. The summits received much more media attention and were considered to be the main front in Trump's diplomacy.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 07:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The remaining text 27 letters in which the two men described a warm personal friendship covers it well enough (it still shows personal diplomacy... ultimately fruitless). "Love letters" is just another Trump hyperbole. starship .paint ( exalt) 15:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we have enough support to restore the trimming, but I don't want to do that myself this soon, so can someone else do so? The discussion can still continue. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

No you don't have support to change longstanding consensus text. Trump is a masterful communicator and he chose to say love letter to characterize the relationship. We follow verified RS. ASTONISH has nothing to do with censoring verified content. Don't misappropriate guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 10:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• You certainly do not have consensus to make this challenged edit. Neutrality ^talk 17:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It's only one person who is opposing the change, or two including Neutrality. By any definition, consensus favours the trimmed version over the previous version. It's not unanimous support, but that's not required. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 20:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Trimmed version is sufficient, no need to wax lyrical on "love letters". A "personal diplomacy" characterization is more neutral, let's resist playing into Trump's love for hyperbole. — JFG ^talk 15:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  Personal diplomacy is Kissinger and Reagan. This is not described as such in RS. Let's describe a zebra. It's a white horse. Those stripes are just an insignificant detail. SPECIFICO talk 18:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This is quite a baffling analogy, as zebras are most definitely not horses. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 20:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Bingo! Just as mainstream RS do not call Trump's Korean adventures diplomacy or foreign policy. His approach is described as reality TV or clowning and dereliction of duty in the face of a dangerous threat. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you are confusing your own opinions with "mainstream RS". There are many sources which call Trump's activities diplomacy.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 07:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Ad hominems suggest you have no substantive rationale for expunging this key content. Are you familiar with RS coverage of this? With the statements of Mattis, Tillerson, Bolton, and countless other domain experts. For starters you can google Trump diplomacy and see what happens. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay we get it, you don't like Donald Trump. If you seriously think that is what the article should say, make a bold edit or propose it. Otherwise it's just more WP:POV WP:NOTHERE. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 08:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you really need to be reminded not to make personal remarks? Again? There is longstanding consensus text, so it falls on your shoulders or other body parts to justify removal. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with what I've said. The claims you are making, which you are not saying should be in the article, are not currently in the article. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 09:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support trim as an improvement over the previous. It could be improved further (the first thing that jumps out at me is that Time is a poor source for this, but there are others that could be used). I think I weakly support including the last sentence, at least for now. The point should be made, although I think a good objection is raised about the implied cause and effect. I think that's another area of future improvement. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 17:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support trim Using Trump's description "love letters" could be very confusing and misleading for those readers who don't know much about the two leaders' engagement. I also think characterizations like "personal diplomacy" or similar are much better here. The new version of the text after trimming is fine, it is shorter and clearer. Felix558 ( talk) 00:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support trim with no major concerns with it. I also think that SPECIFICO, among others, needs to take a step back and remember that this article is too long, and is not a bulletin board of every potentially negative thing that can be possibly said about Trump - it is an encyclopedia article - not the place for people to vent about how bad they think he is. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 02:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  @ Berchanhimez: Do I need to repeat to you? "Too long" must not be prioritized above NPOV and V. So the issue would be how to shorten. And also to repeat myself, the way to do that is to replace select news items with secondary and tertiary sources that summarize them to tell Trump's approach to the underlying issues and events. In the case of North Korea, the way to remove detail like the "love letters" bit - now that time has passed and perspective has widened - would be to cite sources such as the ones I linked above and others, that summarize his approach to diplomacy and to the threat of NK weapons. SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

No adverse affects on neutrality or verifiability here. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 01:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support trimming It is way past time to cull out the coatracking of trivial innuendos and non BLP compliant gibberish.-- MONGO ( talk) 05:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  BLP is a straw man, with widely reported direct qoutes of Trump's narrative about love letter. SPECIFICO talk 00:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

An alternative trimming

I have made an alternative cut, which substantially reduces size but, I think, retains the meaningful information. What do others think? MelanieN, any views? Neutrality ^talk 18:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I applaud the effort and will review this. What did I trim that you think should be kept? Onetwothreeip ( talk) 19:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Combining the first two sentences is certainly good. I tried to do that but was reverted.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Question

Why does trimming the North Korean section attract so much attention as opposed to the rest of the "Foreign policy" section???-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

North Korea (Kim) is featured in the lede as one whole sentence, so obviously editors consider it important. starship .paint ( exalt) 15:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but why does the trimming of this section attract so much attention?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Because the section is judged important, the trimming is less favoured. Anything else you want to suggest? starship .paint ( exalt) 09:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's the complete opposite. People are targetting the North Korean section to be minimised, again and again and again. Why???-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Jack Upland: - I'm befuddled by your comment, as you yourself support trimming of the North Korean section. Perhaps people agree with your reasons. starship .paint ( exalt) 02:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

My question makes perfectly logical sense. I support trimming in general, but the North Korean material seems to get the knife inordinately often.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Time to implement

It's clear that this has overwhelming consensus now. Could someone please implement? Thanks. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 09:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about???-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I've added this subsection heading to distinguish it from the "Question" subsection. I am referring to the edit I brought to the talk page in this overall section, which is now clearly endorsed by a consensus of the talk page participants. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 21:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Neutrality: has already implemented an acceptable compromise trim. I think this has been resolved. If you wish to insist on your own wording, you could launch an RfC, but I think this would be pointless. SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. There is near unanimous consensus for 123's proposed trim. We do not need an RFC. I will implement the trim later if no one beats me to it. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 00:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I see consensus also. starship .paint ( exalt) 02:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I obviously disagree - the comments are clear that people like a trimmed version over what was previously in the article, but I see few or no people obviously expressing an opinion for 123's trimmed version over my trimmed version. Since my version was proposed after 123's version began to be discussed, a simple head-counting exercise is inapt. I am OK with an "A vs. B" RFC if others insist. Neutrality ^talk 15:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I give up. You and Specifico are too difficult to work with. Your tag team ownership is too frustrating and your obstruction takes up too much of my time. Nobody can sincerely claim there isn't consensus in this thread for 123's trim and not yours. Meanwhile you've already implemented yours. How nice. Goodbye. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 16:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Not a single editor objected to my version, which accommodated everyone's desire for trimming while avoiding the controversial parts of the 123's edit. Had a single person objected, I would have happily reverted back to the status quo (pre-trimmed) version. I have consistently made consensus-based efforts to update, improve, and condense this article. It's truly unfortunate that you've chosen to focus on editors rather than content. Neutrality ^talk 17:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, then I object to your version. In reality, your proposal was simply ignored by the majority of people. There is clearly more support for the trimming that I did than what you did, so obviously what I did should be what is implemented, given that the vast majority of talk page participants here agreed with mine. It would be proper to start a discussion about your proposal after mine is implemented. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 21:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

More people objected to your proposal than to my proposal. (In fact, my proposal has been in the article for five days without any objection until yours just now.) In addition, while everyone agreed on trimming, there was certainly no consensus that your trimming was better than my trimming. And there was no consensus to exclude the key sentence: "North Korea continued to build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles." Your version also randomly re-inserted a mention of Trump imposing additional sanctions against North Korea in 2017, while deleting references to Trump rescinding some sanctions against North Korea in 2019. Was this intentional? This disorganized process is not good. I am happy to work with you on a formal RFC with an "A vs. B" text that highlights the specific differences and narrows the range of text under dispute. Neutrality ^talk 23:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The only reason that nobody objected to your proposal is because nobody saw it. Likewise, nobody expressed support of your proposal either. This is compared with what I proposed, which many people have commented on, and the vast majority have expressed support explicitly for my proposal, and not only for the notion of trimming the subsection. Consensus does not require unanimity. Of course my edits were intentional. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 03:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Awilley: what can be done here? There is clearly an overwhelming consensus here and the attempts to hinder its implementation are getting disruptive. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 03:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Onetwothreeip: I read through the section above yesterday but didn't have time to reply then. I haven't looked at the relevant diffs, only the discussion here. My impression from that is that there's clearly a consensus to trim and specifically to remove the language about "love letters". I don't really see a consensus for a specific wording after the trim, and rather than hold a RfC with two competing wordings, I suggest the best path forward is to work from where the article currently is and make incremental improvements. Neutrality has expressed some objections to your trim (see "bottom line" sentence) and you clearly have some objections to Neutrality's trim. I suggest you get those objections out in the open. Once you understand N's objections and N understands yours, it will be easier to find a compromise. An easy way to start this is for you to edit the paragraph one sentence at a time, providing an edit summary explaining what problem you're fixing. Start with the uncontroversial stuff. Then if N objects to any edits, they can revert, and you can start discussing specifics. What not to do is simply revert to your preferred revision. That's just asking for an edit war. Good luck. ~ Awilley ( talk) 02:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention Awilley. I'm not referring to a dispute with Neutrality though, I am referring only to the version I proposed being implemented. Is it not clear that the consensus explicitly supports the trimming I proposed? I have followed the usual process by bringing the proposal to the talk page after it was reverted by one editor. Now that there is consensus for what I have proposed, when is the right time to implement it into the article? I would also like clarification on whether someone proposing something new can delay this procedure, even when the new proposal does not have consensus support. Could you also clarify when or how one or two editors can form a veto over consensus? If this is too broad, I am happy to take this to my user talk page. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's review the bidding here:

1. You started an informal discussion, and most others—including me—supported trimming over the previous version.
2. During/after the discussion, given that there was a rough consensus that trimming was a good idea, I implemented a trimmed version. That was uncontroversial; nobody challenged it either by reversion or at the talk page. Everyone agrees that this is an improvement over the status quo ante.
3. The focus of the conversation was about trimming, and the trimming was done. Nobody ever expressed support for the notion that your version could replace all intervening edits.
4. The discussion above was not focused on the crucial "bottom line" last sentence ("North Korea continued to build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles"). This sentence has been discussed before, and efforts to remove it were unsuccessful. And in the discussion above, by my rough count, of the three editors in the above discussion who mentioned this point, there was 2–1 in favor of retaining it. If you count me and you, it's 3–2 in favor of retention.
5. Despite the above, you imposed your version (which numerous editors have, at least in part, objected to) over the stable version that had been trimmed five days ago (which I don't think any editor, except for you, has objected to).
6. As part of your edit, you also randomly re-inserted a mention of Trump imposing additional sanctions against North Korea in 2017, while deleting references to Trump rescinding some sanctions against North Korea in 2019. This was not discussed at all above. You have not yet articulated any rationale for this.
7. I've offered to collaborate with you on a organized RfC with a clear A vs. B choice, but you've not accepted that offer.

Neutrality ^talk 05:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Not only did the clear majority of participants supporting trimming the previous version, they explicitly supported how I trimmed the subsection. This is not about the sentence "North Korea continued to build up...", this is about purely my edit that I linked to at the start of this talk page section. Whether or not others agree that your proposal is better than the previous version is a completely separate matter, and also completely unsupported given the very minor attention it has received. The "numerous editors" objecting are only yourself and Specifico, against the views of many more talk page participants.

I have no issue with any RfC on any alternative proposal you wish to raise, but that can only happen after the version supported by the vast majority of participants in this talk page section is implemented. Otherwise, it would very blatantly be an attempt to delay the implementation of this consensus, which has already been needlessly delayed. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 08:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• So you implemented the version you informally proposed — then you concurrently proceeded to make other, new edits that you did not earlier propose (or that were previously rejected), and that were promptly reverted (by SPECIFICO)? That rather creates, rather than resolves, confusion. Your comment also still doesn't explain your change to the sanctions language.

I propose to put the issue to a clear, formal RFC: with Option A being the current, trimmed status quo version (without the "love letters" quote, since that passage seems to raise concerns) and Option B being whatever specific text you would like to propose. A clear outcome will result (as opposed to a muddle in which different proposals and different edits were made at different times to different parts of the text), and we can all move on from the North Korea section. Neutrality ^talk 19:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I see no reason to exclude the love letters. The only alternative, which would require a lot of work but may eventually be done, is to substitute more general tertiary-sourced material that captures the aspects of Trump's approach of which the "love letters" is an example and which conveys the substance of his approach. There's a reason the love letters remark has been so widely reported and discussed in secodnary and tertiary sources, and that establishes its DUE significance for this article. I'll just keep repeating every time it comes up, we should not force the narrative of Donald Trump into a cognitive template applicable to other presidents who were focused on policy and civic process. Trump's is not Jimmy Carter, Bush2, or other presidents whose policies failed. It's a different phenomonon and we need to be purely descriptive.

For additional love letter references, see Woodward/VOA, USA Today "As Kim wooed Trump with ‘love letters,’ he kept building his nuclear capability, intelligence shows" in WaPo video [2] Trump Administration NK movie trailer. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, what I proposed at the very start of this section (which is what has overwhelming consensus) is what needs to be implemented now. I have since made other edits to the article, and if you want to revert those, that's fine. I'm not referring to all the edits I have made, only the single edit that this entire discussion was started with. Your and Specifico's disagreement is noted, but doesn't get to overturn or delay the consensus reached here. I have no issue with you wanting to start an RfC for your own proposal, after the consensus is implemented. No, there is no need to create an RfC comparing the new consensus version with yours before the former is implemented into the article. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 21:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Levivich: There is near unanimous consensus for 123's proposed trim. We do not need an RFC. I will implement the trim later if no one beats me to it. I would be grateful if you could do so. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No sorry I'm done spending any more of my time on this page. I applaud your efforts to improve it but for me, I'm just not volunteering any more time if it means having to fight with those two about every damn edit. They'd probably file at AE and accuse me of tag teaming anyway. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 21:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus check

There is possibly some confusion on what the consensus here is actually a consensus for. The following editors have seemingly expressed support for not only trimming the subsection generally, but for the way that I trimmed it as well. @ Jack Upland, Starship.paint, The Four Deuces, JFG, Levivich, Felix558, and Berchanhimez: Sorry if you have already made your views clear, but if you do support the version I proposed (when I started this talk page section) as an improvement on the pre-existing North Korea paragraphs, could you please say so here? I feel that we need clarity to bring the issue to some kind of conclusion. Thanks. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

What's needed, if you want to continue this, is not more canvassing but rather a more structured process. As you were told many days ago, your best bet would be a formal poll or RfC after the group decides on 2-3 alternatives. In general, the best way to update longstanding NPOV text is not to cut a few words here and there, but rather to do what Neutrality and MelanieN have each done recently -- to write a new summary version that takes account of the underlying content issues. SPECIFICO talk 09:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. Only you and the other editor opposing the consensus have expressed that view. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 20:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you that your colleagues here have devoted substantial thought and editing experience to their comments and that knee-jerk denial of others' work is very damaging to your own efforts? Dispute Resolution protocols are well-defined and at least more than half the time they are effective, if not speedy. To overturn longstanding consensus text, you'd need to demonstrate -- not merely assert -- new consensus. SPECIFICO talk

Your colleagues are clearly saying that my proposal should be implemented. To overturn longstanding consensus text, you'd need to demonstrate -- not merely assert -- new consensus. This has been extensively demonstrated in this talk page discussion. As far as I am aware, you do not hold any veto over the consensus process, and it is possible that a consensus may be found even if you don't personally agree with it. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 22:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

There's only two editors opposing this edit. There is no need for a formal poll or RFC when the consensus is so obvious. The consensus version should be reinstated immediately. Mr Ernie ( talk) 18:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Onetwothreeip: As far as I can see, the large majority of editors who participated in this discussion are supporting your trimmed version of the North Korea subsection, therefore I also think formal RFC and this "Consensus check" are not needed. I see a clear consensus to trim and implement your version. Felix558 ( talk) 21:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the trim, per the clear consensus. Mr Ernie ( talk) 07:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well that didn't last long. Consensus ignored again. Space4Time3Continuum2x please respect the results of the discussion above. Mr Ernie ( talk) 12:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ernie, first off, it is not helpful to call a disputed cut by the misleading word, "trim". If it were merely a trim, there would not have been this talk page discussion. Perhaps you could read and react to the sources and reasoned arguments cited here in this thread. Or not, it's up to you. SPECIFICO talk 14:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The version you restored isn't 123ip's original trimmed version. That one did not delete the last sentence,i.e., North Korea continued to build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. and that's the version several editors agreed to, if I'm not mistaken. At what point did the sentence go AWOL? My second edit deleted the "love letter" clause which several editors objected to, if I'm not mistaken. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 22:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I support Neutrality's proposed trim. I oppose this trim [3], which leaves out pertinent content, the absence of which would mislead readers today (and in the future) into thinking Trump's negotiations with North Korea produced results when it was immediately clear per RS and experts that they didn't (as shown by North Korea bolstering its nuclear weapons program). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, man!-- Jack Upland ( talk) 17:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I have requested this be closed by an uninvolved party. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 20:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise.

This has no encyclopedic value and shouldn't be included in the article. Something about his interest in golf can be included. If we want to discuss his exercise then it would be better to start over. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. Support rephrase: version A (He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is akin to a battery, with a limited amount of energy which is depleted by exercise.) starship .paint ( exalt)
  I oppose removal as I disagree that this has no encyclopaedic value. It helps us understand Trump the man better. It also explains his obesity. We used to have more on his lifestyle. That was removed by Onetwothreeip. Trump abstains from alcohol. He says he has never smoked tobacco or cannabis. He likes fast food. He has said he prefers three to four hours of sleep per night. Rephrase the second quote because it isn't Trump's exact words. starship .paint ( exalt) 14:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This is simply not true. Obesity is not caused by lack of exercise. If we have something properly sourced to explain the causes of his obesity, we may add that in the article. This is what I mean by potentially starting over rather than holding onto this wording. Your reasoning indicates that readers are making inferences that are not made by us, and we need to avoid that. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 20:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Obesity is not caused by lack of exercise. - Excuse me?! The World Health Organization, the American CDC, the British National Health Service, and the Harvard School of Public Health would disagree. Trump's White House doctor said: "I think a reasonable goal over the next year or so would be [for Trump] to lose 10 to 15 pounds," Jackson said. "We talked about diet and exercise a lot. He is more enthusiastic about the diet part than the exercise part but we're going to do both." Clearly exercise is a factor affecting weight, as is diet, that's from Trump's own doctor. We are not stating that exercise is the only factor, but certainly it is something to keep in mind. starship .paint ( exalt) 03:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

If you actually read those sources, you'll see it's more about an active lifestyle or occupation than exercise. Regardless, we would need sources stating his obesity is caused by lack of exercise, and not synthesising it from his weight alone. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 09:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

(1) You're talking as if there is no link between obesity and exercise, but there is (see Dr. Jackson above), and NHS confirms it. Harvard says that exercise is a subset of physical activity, which is linked to obesity. WHO measured physical activity via exercise programmes. CDC lists various forms of exercise as vigorous physical activities. (2) You are making this wholly about his weight, but this is also about his lifestyle. It didn't help that you deleted everything else about his lifestyle. starship .paint ( exalt) 09:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I think this provides good insight into his health beliefs and practices, and does so in his own words. It should be kept. I hadn't noticed that the material Starship quotes above had been removed and I think it should be restored. The widely-reported fact that he does not drink or smoke is an important health factor and should be included (although I could do without the "fast food" dig). I'm going to suggest restoring it, in a separate section after I dig up the necessary references. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting side note: turns out Biden is also a lifelong teetotaler. [4] Maybe the one thing they have in common. Who knew? -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

What insight into his health does it provide? It does not, it describes him doing one activity. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 20:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose removal — I do think we should include that he is a teetotaler, his sleeping habits, and his eccentric views on exercise. (Sleeping habits of Trump have been the subject of academic interest). I agree with cutting the stuff about fast food, cannabis, and tobacco. Neutrality ^talk 17:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal of He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. and oppose removal of He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. I see nothing wrong with mentioning his exercise habits, that's part of his health. However, the sentence about the body being a battery has no value. Firstly, it doesn't say anything about Trump's health, which is what this is about. Secondly, this comment was almost certainly a joke. I highly doubt Trump actually believes that. The only reason it's there now is to make Trump look stupid, which violates NPOV. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 22:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  Comment Please review the talk page origins of Consensus 40. I do not recall any source or WP editor arguing that Trump's battery theory of exercise was a joke. Do you have any basis for your statement? SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  Ok so when I googled this I expected to see some candid video of Trump on CNN saying "exercise is a waste of energy...blah blah", but I was wrong. Trump has never said such a statement before, this is just a hearsay comment that one of his old friends claimed he said. This sentence mislead me, and the thousands of readers of this article, that Trump said that, when this quote has never been confirmed. Wikipedia is not a place for speculation to be said as fact. He even tried to argue that he does exercise by walking around. While it's true that Trump is no triathlete, he really hasn't said much against exercising. The only negative thing he has said about exercising is he doesn't like his older friends working out to profusely because their knees could go out. This sentence is just pure unsubstantiated bullshit, that shouldn't be mentioned. Here are the articles: [5] [6] Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 02:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  This is not like baseball where you get 3 swings. First, you acknowledged his belief but said it was him joking. Then you say he never said it. But now, I'll refer you to the cited reference, which is RS. So what is the problem? SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  He even tried to argue that he does exercise by walking around. - now that’s absolute bullshit from Trump. He also argued that he exercised by giving an hour long speech. Reliable sources have reported his battery theory, and that’s what we go with. It’s not speculation. We’re not obliged to stop him from making himself look idiotic. WP:NPOV doesn’t mean that. starship .paint ( exalt) 02:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Starship.paint You believe Trump saying he walks for exercise is bullshit, thats fine, I believe this unsubstantiated quote that right now only serves to demean Trump is bullshit. Reliable sources haven't proved that Trump has said this. Therefore, it's pure speculation. SPECIFICO I still believe if Trump ever said this that it was likely a joke, but that's beyond the point because this very well may have never been said. As I just told Starship.paint, reliable sources haven't confirmed this quote. My problem is Wikipedia is including pure speculation, whether by reliable sources or not, as fact. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 03:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Iamreallygoodatcheckers: - you have a point, that quote isn't Trump's words, that's WaPo's words. This would be solved by rephrasing the comment. We should not be giving the impression that this is a quote from Trump. starship .paint ( exalt) 09:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Starship.paint: You can't really rephrase it because it's such a specific phrase. It's just not appropriate to be on this page. We have no reason to believe that Trump actually believes that. Even the sources haven't proved he say it. This theory remains unsubstantiated. If this is going to be included at any level, it should mention that this was never said by Trump, and is a fringe theory that The Washington Post made up in their heads. Remember sources are GENERALLY reliable under WP:RSP, I don't think we emphasize generally enough. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 04:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, It's from this New Yorker article, where it is not sourced to "friends" but rather said as fact. The New Yorker is a WP:RS. Gershonmk ( talk) 11:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support: this is an interesting bit of trivia, but it is trivia nonetheless. There is no way of knowing (from the text in the article) if this was an off-the-cuff comment Trump made or a philosophy he has had from birth. Editors should adhere to Wikipedia policies or retreat to Facebook. Biography articles here are supposed to be in chronological order, not some online noticeboard compiled by woold-be Woodwards. This is a man's life we are talking about. Who is this man? How can you have a short section about his health which references information about his health when he's in his 70s? Is this the sum total of the man — that he was overweight when he was 70 or that he took up golf when he was 56? Get a grip, people!-- Jack Upland ( talk) 05:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. The article is too long as it is, and this piece of trivia is unimportant. I can understand how his exercise routine might be an important subject during his presidency, but now that he is just a private citizen it is of no import. Rreagan007 ( talk) 18:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support- Never should have been included. Trump was probably making a joke when he said this, but the fact that certain media organizations did investigative pieces on this is something that I find hilarious.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 21:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Any RS to substantiate probably making a joke? Otherwise you’re going against RS with your own speculation. starship .paint ( exalt) 03:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

  Rusf10, It's from here, a WP:RS that states it as fact. Gershonmk ( talk) 11:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  I don't doubt he said it. He has a very sarcastic sense of humor and the media takes things that he says and reports it as if he was serious, like series of stories done on how Trump recommends injecting yourself with bleach to prevent the virus.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 23:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

He has a very sarcastic sense of humor or so he said. Yeah, let’s blame the media for misunderstanding his—uh—sense of humor, whether it’s too much testing increasing the number of covid cases or asking Dr. Birx whether there is a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it’d be interesting to check that. Trump wasn’t talking to the press when he admonished his employee that he would die young because (battery). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support how it made it in the article in the first place is truly beyond me. Anon0098 ( talk) 01:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  If it is beyond you, please review the long talk archive of the discussion that arrived at the consensus language. Then, it will be in front of you. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal as having no encyclopedic value. PackMecEng ( talk) 01:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support the two sentences discussed here aren't useful in this excessively-long article. There is no stand-alone Health of Donald Trump article, but it could probably go in Donald Trump and golf. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Those two trivial sentences discussed here should be removed, they have no encyclopedic value. Felix558 ( talk) 23:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per starship.paint. I believe this is important to the article. It is fine to consider rephrasing these two sentences, but removing them makes the Health section less comprehensive. Davey2116 ( talk) 10:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's the weirdest (and one of the littlest-known) beliefs that the President carries: his battery theory of life energy ( CNN); #10 of Trump’s 10 most absurd claims Why it makes the list: Because it sounds like a theory people had 100 years ago, before modern medicine and science. ( WaPo); a notion that puts Trump in the company of thinkers ranging from antiquity to the early 19th century ( Snopes), plus a number of sources just quoting that remarkable opinion. The main arguments for removal are trivia, unencyclopedic, not useful, why was it included—no explanation why the editors consider the info to be trivial etc. It wasn't a joke told to a friend, as Checkers believes; Trump told an employee (O'Donnell) who was training for an Ironman that he would die young because the body was like a battery, with a finite amount of energy, which exercise only depleted (I'll look up the pages in O'Donnell and Kranish/Fisher later). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose removal Nothing has changed since the thorough discussion that arrived at consensus. Anyway it does him a disservice not to give his explanation for not exercising in the age of Peleton. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal or rephrasing - either remove it, or explain why this "trivia" about his belief in this theory is encyclopedic in the article - if a reader can't determine "why do I care", then it shouldn't be included. The mention of his "battery talk" is certainly trivial and does not merit mention in this article unless it has some very very good reason it is encyclopedic. Keep mention of exercise habits (ex: golf).

Who is "a reader" (and who are you)? This reader thinks that the theory of exercise depleting a body’s life energy ranks right up there with the flat earth theory, i.e., 15th century. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion clearly demonstrates there is no longer any consensus for the consensus #40 wording. We should now turn our attention to alternative wording, if any. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 08:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Given this discussion, I will alter the contentious parts of this. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 21:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip Wait a minute. Before you make any changes, tell us what you are planning to do. And you are too involved a discusser here to decide, on your own, that there is agreement to change the consensus. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Doing a quick count: 8 people say remove both sentences (golf and battery). 6 people say keep both sentences. 2 people say keep golf but remove battery. This would suggest a weak consensus to keep the golf sentence (even 8-8 split) and remove the battery sentence (10-6 for removal). -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Nothing close to the kind of new consensus that we'd need to change the longstanding text. SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying there is consensus against the text. What is clear is that there is no longer consensus for the text. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 09:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not how this works. The longstanding consensus stands until a new consensus to replace is evident. SPECIFICO talk 12:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I think it's fine, and I don't support any changes that don't specifically reach consensus once it's under discussion here. We should source it to the New Yorker, as there does seem to be confusion about the source. Gershonmk ( talk) 11:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support: we can't and shouldn't include every weird fact about the Donald. Jack Upland ( talk) 08:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I refer you all to WP:RECENTISM and WP:10YT

This article is just far too long and far too extensive.

LordParsifal ( talk) 22:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Do you have any specific proposals? Generic complaints are distinctly unhelpful here. Neutrality ^talk 22:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Disagree. We need to keep flagging the fact that this is too long and that it is recentist, until the recalcitrant editors get the message and mend their ways or move on to greener pastures.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 03:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
    • See above. SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Agreed, it seems like an issue many would rather ignore. Hopefully given time it will start to move in the right direction. PackMecEng ( talk) 15:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I am all for actions, including boldly were necessary, to remove content that was added quickly after news events and without serious long term interest. If there are any article maintenance tags for recentism, that may be even more useful than a maintenance tag for the article simply being long. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 01:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• The article at 430KB isn't nearly as too-long as it was at 490KB. It would be nice to get this under 350KB; but the cuts aren't nearly as obvious as they were in January. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  The way to reduce the size would be to write well-sourced summary text that can replace narration of instances of whatever the subject. We did this quite a while ago with the matter of Trump's false and misleading statements. At first we described each significant instance. Over time, RS presented summary narratives of his widespread mistruths. Thus we were able to include well-sourced summary content far briefer than the original listing of many false statements. SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed some content about a letter that Donald Trump's doctor wrote publicly endorsing his health, here, but was reverted. This isn't reliable information about his health and isn't important biographical information about the article's subject. Potentially belongs somewhere else, but certainly not here. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Support: The source of this claim is obviously biased and constitutes WP:UNDUE without balancing info. Also, the section should mention his COVID case. Gershonmk ( talk) 12:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Gershonmk. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 21:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This statement was very widely reported - probably the one thing that everybody has heard about his health. And it provides an excellent example of Trump's flair for hyperbole. The COVID case has its own section but I suppose there could be a mention under "health" referring to the main section. It was the only major health event of his presidency. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

BTW what became of the paragraph about his checkups while president? -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Good catch, MelanieN. That should go back, and now we have RS reporting that Trump's Covid illness was much more dire than reported. That could be part of a summary regarding incomplete, false, and misleading health information. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• a summary regarding incomplete, false, and misleading health information - no objection to such a summary. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I removed it 9 days ago (typo in edit summary). The last sentence had a typo (the cite is about a CT scan in 2018, not 2019) that had gone unnoticed for 19 months, indicating a lack of reader interest. Do the medical bulletins issued during Trump's former occupation (e.g., did not have an enlarged liver or spleen) really matter now—or ever, being kind of the normal condition of the human body? The only noteworthy health issue was the covid-19 infection which we mention. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Not a reason to include it in the section. The section is to describe his health, not embarrass him with his comments. There are other places for that. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Embarrassment is not at issue here. SPECIFICO talk 07:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

MelanieN, IMO Trump's COVID-19 infection, including the experimental etc. treatment, definitely belongs in the "Health" section. We should consider rewriting Hospitalization with COVID_19, i.e., remove the details about the treatment, etc., and add a summary about the misinformation of the public. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Seems a reasonable trim, since it does not tell us anything special. Saying it implies something is inappropriate, if you want the article to imply something or the like just say it. PackMecEng ( talk) 00:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support don't see the necessity for this information here Anon0098 ( talk) 03:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, but suggest moving the info into the first paragraph of the Republican primaries section. The paragraph isn't really about Trump's health but about the widely mocked letter his campaign released in December 2015 and the claim that Trump had written it himself dictated the letter to Bornstein. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Comment -- makes sense to me Gershonmk ( talk) 15:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, that is a better option — if it must be included.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 19:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per MelanieN. The letter was made significant by Trump’s supposed faking of it. A good thing to keep in mind since Trump’s doctors have often praised his health. starship .paint ( exalt) 14:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't belong in the health section then. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 22:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 19:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support: Doesn't tell us anything important in an already obese article.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. MelanieN explains the significance well. Neutrality ^talk 01:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: As previously discussed, the "Health" section is a real problem. It purports to be about his health over eight decades but is really about his health immediately preceding and during his presidency. A real section about his health would be a chronological miscellany including information about his bone spurs etc. It makes more sense to deal with health issues as they arise. There is no point in mentioning COVID twice. There is no point in having this section.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 19:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@ Pipsally: Re [7]. The sentence leaves a reader who doesn't know why Sessions recused himself (it isn't mentioned anywhere in the article) wondering what it's all about. Also, bemoanings and beliefs - just seems too trivial for this top bio. I'm still considering removing the entire paragraph because the section is about the Mueller investigation; Trump's denials, intentions that came to nothing, beliefs, and bemoanings weren't part of it, just the usual Trump background noise to everything. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree this background noise doesn't belong here. Otherwise we would be going into detail about why Jeff Sessions recused from the investigations, and that's far too much for this article. While during the Trump presidency it seemed like the Mueller investigation would be critical, it clearly didn't come to that. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 21:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Trump's behaviour strong this investigation is entirely pertinent. Just because he didn't shut down the investigation in the ends does not diminish the wider impact of his behaviour, and feed into a much broader pattern of behaviour. Pipsally ( talk) 18:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Which broader pattern of behavior? The problem with the investigation was that it was hamstrung from the start ( NY Times). Trump bitched and moaned whenever he thought they were exceeding the allowed scope, i.e., investigating him, his taxes, etc. He denied, he hissy fitted, and then his staff either talked him down or he forgot, whichever came first. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Here we are with "pattern of behaviour" again. If you want to include the pattern, that's fine, but there is no need to include individual pieces of that pattern unless those pieces themselves are due. We don't have an exception to WP:DUE stating that something can be included if it is related to something that is due. We have other articles for this level of detail. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 21:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to propose summary text for editorsx review and consideration. SPECIFICO talk 23:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Space4Time3Continuum2x that the paragraph should be removed from this article. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

talk about how many people hate him and why he shouldnt hsve been president any way Eehdbf ( talk) 20:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The controversy surrounding Trump is covered extensively. — Czello 20:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I woul like to add a few things 194.223.61.176 ( talk) 09:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)